I see now that it's a matter of where ἅμα fits in the sentence, and whether it is takenwith the verb or the participle. (iii) goes with the finite verb, (i) with the participle and having the meaning of εὐθὺς as you said. Do you have other examples where the meaning of (ii), all at the same time, could be found?

I know that Smyth in 2081 wrote the following which might be the reason reading (i) is the prevalent one:

ἅμαat the same time, αὐτίκαimmediately, εὐθύςstraightway, μεταξύbetween, in the midst, thoughstrictly modifying the main verb, are often placed close to a temporal participle which they modify in sense.

pster wrote:I checked the Hornblower for you, but he doesn't take up that clause.

Hi, pster - good to hear from you.

Many thanks for checking. As far as I can tell, not a single commentator touches on this point, even though it's sufficiently problematic to cause different translators to interpret it in a variety of different ways!

I see now that it's a matter of where ἅμα fits in the sentence, and whether it is takenwith the verb or the participle. (iii) goes with the finite verb, (i) with the participle and having the meaning of εὐθὺς as you said. Do you have other examples where the meaning of (ii), all at the same time, could be found?

I know that Smyth in 2081 wrote the following which might be the reason reading (i) is the prevalent one:

ἅμαat the same time, αὐτίκαimmediately, εὐθύςstraightway, μεταξύbetween, in the midst, thoughstrictly modifying the main verb, are often placed close to a temporal participle which they modify in sense.

Nate - thanks again for this.

With regard to (ii), the other instance of ἅμα in the continuation of the same passage would seem to fit the bill in terms of meaning 'all together' or 'all at the same time':

' ... despite the Athenians’ advice to let them sail out first, and that the Corcyraeans should come up afterwards with all their vessels at the same time.'

However, while in that part of the sentence the interpretation 'all at the same time' (i.e. as opposed to sending their vessels wastefully into action one at a time) is clearly appropriate, I'm still not clear why, in the preceding part, Thucydides would make a point of the fact that they were preparing the ships all at the same time.

With regard to option (i), ἅμα is quite some way away from the participle πεφοβημένοι, so I don't know if Smyth 2081 (for which many thanks) applies. Plus, as I said, I'd expect εὐθὺς from Thucydides in the sense of '... they immediately started to ...'

John W. wrote:With regard to option (i), ἅμα is quite some way away from the participle πεφοβημένοι, so I don't know if Smyth 2081 (for which many thanks) applies. Plus, as I said, I'd expect εὐθὺς from Thucydides in the sense of '... they immediately started to ...'

My apologies. For some reason, I had in my mind παρεσκευάζοντο as a participle.

John W. wrote:With regard to option (i), ἅμα is quite some way away from the participle πεφοβημένοι, so I don't know if Smyth 2081 (for which many thanks) applies. Plus, as I said, I'd expect εὐθὺς from Thucydides in the sense of '... they immediately started to ...'

My apologies. For some reason, I had in my mind παρεσκευάζοντο as a participle.

' ... despite the Athenians’ advice to let them sail out first, and that the Corcyraeans should come up afterwards with all their vessels at the same time.'

However, while in that part of the sentence the interpretation 'all at the same time' (i.e. as opposed to sending their vessels wastefully into action one at a time) is clearly appropriate, I'm still not clear why, in the preceding part, Thucydides would make a point of the fact that they were preparing the ships all at the same time.

Wouldn't you agree that the meaning of all at the same time here is largely due to πάσαις and notinherently part of the general meaning of ἅμα?

NateD26 wrote: Wouldn't you agree that the meaning of all at the same time here is largely due to πάσαις and notinherently part of the general meaning of ἅμα?

Certainly the 'all' bit is due to πάσαις, Nate, though I think πάσαις ἅμα here has to be taken together as a phrase - 'all at the same time'. But I take (I hope!) your point: since πάσαις doesn't appear in the passage that's troubling me, this would seem to render option (ii) less likely. Is that what you had in mind?

NateD26 wrote: Wouldn't you agree that the meaning of all at the same time here is largely due to πάσαις and notinherently part of the general meaning of ἅμα?

Certainly the 'all' bit is due to πάσαις, Nate, though I think πάσαις ἅμα here has to be taken together as a phrase - 'all at the same time'. But I take (I hope!) your point: since πάσαις doesn't appear in the passage that's troubling me, this would seem to render option (ii) less likely. Is that what you had in mind?

Best wishes,

John

Yes, that was my intention.

I also tried but couldn't come to a conclusion regarding the role of ἅμα. Usually, it would appear beforethe verb or participle it modifies, but here it goes with the 60 ships. To read it in the sense of (i),wouldn't it normally appear before the verb, ἅμα τε παρεσκευάζοντο ἑξήκοντα ναῦς καὶ τὰς αἰεὶ πληρουμένας ἐξέπεμπον πρὸς τοὺς ἐναντίους? Perhaps I'm reading too much into this.

I also tried but couldn't come to a conclusion regarding the role of ἅμα. Usually, it would appear beforethe verb or participle it modifies, but here it goes with the 60 ships. To read it in the sense of (i),wouldn't it normally appear before the verb, ἅμα τε παρεσκευάζοντο ἑξήκοντα ναῦς καὶ τὰς αἰεὶ πληρουμένας ἐξέπεμπον πρὸς τοὺς ἐναντίους? Perhaps I'm reading too much into this.

I'm glad I interpreted your thinking correctly.

I agree with you regarding the placement of ἅμα, and that this would seem to rule out (i). By the process of elimination we've followed, that now leaves just (iii), viz.:

'The people, in a state of great confusion, and alarmed both by the events in the city and by the approach of the ships, began making ready sixty ships and at the same time kept sending each of them out against the enemy as soon as it was manned, ...'

That's the interpretation I've opted for in my translation of Thucydides, as it seems the most satisfactory in terms of both grammar and sense.

I wouldn't say you're reading too much into it - at least no more so than is inevitable with Thucydides!

Hello John! And hello any others interested in reading Thucydides. The last year was a busy one. Despite numerous non-Greek activities, I still managed to do about two hours a day of Greek. But, as it turned out, very little of that time was spent actually reading Thucydides. I did however manage to memorize all the vocabulary from Book 1 (about 2500 "new" words). So now, as the new year begins, I am positioned to begin reading Thucydides in earnest. My plan is to spend about an hour and a half per day reading and to do so in a hyper-thorough fashion. So I will be pondering every grammatical, every syntactic, every historical and every historiographical puzzle that I encounter. I will work at my own pace. But I commit here and now to promptly (within 48 hours) ponder and respond to any questions that any of you may post in this thread irrespective of from which book they come. I have Cameron's student commentary on Book I, all three volumes of Hornblower, and all the commentaries that are available online. My goal is nothing less than near complete mastery of Thucydides irrespective of how many years it takes. This year's goal is mastery of Book I, but hopefully I'll get into Book II before year's end. And in 2014, I expect the pace to quicken quite a bit. Let the discussion begin!

pster wrote:Hello John! And hello any others interested in reading Thucydides. The last year was a busy one. Despite numerous non-Greek activities, I still managed to do about two hours a day of Greek. But, as it turned out, very little of that time was spent actually reading Thucydides. I did however manage to memorize all the vocabulary from Book 1 (about 2500 "new" words). So now, as the new year begins, I am positioned to begin reading Thucydides in earnest. My plan is to spend about an hour and a half per day reading and to do so in a hyper-thorough fashion. So I will be pondering every grammatical, every syntactic, every historical and every historiographical puzzle that I encounter. I will work at my own pace. But I commit here and now to promptly (within 48 hours) ponder and respond to any questions that any of you may post in this thread irrespective of from which book they come. I have Cameron's student commentary on Book I, all three volumes of Hornblower, and all the commentaries that are available online. My goal is nothing less than near complete mastery of Thucydides irrespective of how many years it takes. This year's goal is mastery of Book I, but hopefully I'll get into Book II before year's end. And in 2014, I expect the pace to quicken quite a bit. Let the discussion begin!

Hello, pster - good to hear from you!

I'm very pleased that you're all tooled up and ready to resume Thucydides, and I look forward to further interesting discussions about him with you and others.

I've just started re-reading Book V this morning, but I'd be more than happy to discuss any points arising from earlier books (I have one small but knotty query from Book IV on which I'd welcome your thoughts - I'll post on it ASAP).

By the way, I've posted something on your 'LSJ' thread which I hope will help with your latest query there.

The query really boils down to what to construe ἅμα with. Some commentators take it as merely co-ordinating the actions of Nicias and Nicostratus, in which case one could translate:

'And on the following day Nicias advanced with half of the army to the Scionians' borders and ravaged the land, while at the same time Nicostratus with the remainder laid siege to Mende at the inland gates, through which people travel towards Potidaea.'

However, I incline to take ἅμα as synchronising προϊὼν and ἐδῄου, and so I have translated:

'And on the following day Nicias advanced with half of the army as far as the Scionians’ borders, ravaging the land as he went, while Nicostratus with the remainder laid siege to Mende at the inland gates, through which people travel towards Potidaea.'

This second interpretation makes more sense to me, but other views would be very welcome.

I don't have Hornblower with me right now and I won't be able to check what he says until Tuesday. But I would be inclined to read ἅμα as coordinating the actions of the two commanders simply because the passage really seems to be emphasizing their simultaneous parallel actions: one "with half the army", the other with other half of the army, both acting at the same time. What is the motivation for the other interpretation? Word location?

pster wrote:I don't have Hornblower with me right now and I won't be able to check what he says until Tuesday. But I would be inclined to read ἅμα as coordinating the actions of the two commanders simply because the passage really seems to be emphasizing their simultaneous parallel actions: one "with half the army", the other with other half of the army, both acting at the same time. What is the motivation for the other interpretation? Word location?

Thanks. Yes, it was mainly a matter of word location, in that the trajection of ἅμα seems a little extreme if the intention was to co-ordinate the actions of the two commanders, for which in any case the presence of μὲν ... δὲ might suffice (though I accept that this doesn't rule out the possible use of ἅμα to emphasise the co-ordination).

I've consulted the three great editions by nineteenth-century German scholars. Poppo-Stahl can see no possible alternative to the 'co-ordination of the two commanders' interpretation, but is uneasy about the word order if that is the case. It was Krueger who first suggested that ἅμα serves to synchronise προϊὼν and ἐδῄου; Classen-Steup notes this, but still favours the 'commander co-ordination' view.

As I said, I currently incline to Krueger's interpretation. But (as so often with Thucydides) it's difficult, if not impossible, to reach a definitive conclusion - you pays your money and you takes your choice! Any further thoughts would, however, be welcome.

'On learning this Brasidas for his part took up an opposing position on Cerdylium: this place belongs to the Argilians, being on high ground beyond the river, not far from Amphipolis, and everything was visible from there, so that Cleon would not escape his notice if he set out with his army ...'

My question is simply this: why do we have ἂν plus the aorist indicative ἔλαθεν here? What sort of a conditional (or potential?) clause is this? Why is it not optative, since it seems to be looking forwards rather than being a past condition? Or is it in fact past, and is it my translation that is at fault - should it be '... so that Cleon would not have escaped his notice if setting out with his army ...'?

'Having arrived and stationed his army on a steep hill in front of Amphipolis, he himself viewed the marshy area of the Strymon and how the city was positioned adjacent to Thrace.'

Here, curiously, my query is in the opposite direction: why is ἔχοι optative rather than indicative? Is it because it is effectively an indirect question, with the indicative turning into the optative?

Apologies again for bothering you with such elementary queries - I think that a combination of flu and a surfeit of mince pies has dulled my wits even more than usual. Any help would be gratefully received.

'On learning this Brasidas for his part took up an opposing position on Cerdylium: this place belongs to the Argilians, being on high ground beyond the river, not far from Amphipolis, and everything was visible from there, so that Cleon would not escape his notice if he set out with his army ...'

My question is simply this: why do we have ἂν plus the aorist indicative ἔλαθεν here? What sort of a conditional (or potential?) clause is this? Why is it not optative, since it seems to be looking forwards rather than being a past condition? Or is it in fact past, and is it my translation that is at fault - should it be '... so that Cleon would not have escaped his notice if setting out with his army ...'?

I will try to answer your questions. My habit is to refer to Mastronarde, Sidgwick, and Smyth in that order. Let me know which of those you have at your disposal. Sidgwick's book, the one on prose composition, has a number of insightful observations about Thucydides' syntactic tendencies.

I think that in the first instance it is an actual result construction (Mast. p. 187). I don't know how else to explain the ὥστε, since it is not used with final/purpose clauses. And while a natural result construction might seem more, ehm, natural, that would require an infinitive. In the second instance, I think it is a past potential indicative (Mast. p. 274). This can be deployed in both independent and dependent settings to indicate a possibility or probability in the past. And it requires the ἂν.

So Thucydides is saying that Brasidas took up that position with the result that Cleon probably would be noticed.

The only thing that makes it seem slippery is that the ὥστε is pointing at a result that is still somewhat indeterminate, ie the situation that actually occurred where Cleon was likely to be noticed, not the later result of his actually being noticed. But it is only our language for describing the Greek grammar ("actual results", etc.) that makes this reading seem like hair splitting.

But we work with indeterminate results in English in much the same way: "When he got the money, he went to Vegas, so that he would likely lose all of it." We can say that and not even know how it actually turned out in the end. But that doesn't change the fact that "so that he would likely lose all of it" is still an actual result of his getting the money and going to Vegas. Perhaps better English syntax would be "so it seemed he would lose it all".

(My guess is Thucydides was narrating along and had already put down the ὥστε indicating an actual result, but then for the sake of greater accuracy wanted to indicate the small possibility that Cleon could have gone unnoticed, perhaps by going at night, or perhaps because of some bit of topography, and so inserted the ἂν. Further evidence for this can perhaps be found at 5.7.1 where Thucydides talks of Brasidas expectations, perhaps indicating the realization that 5.6.3 would have been better phrased with a purpose clause than an actual result clause. But this is perhaps putting too fine a spin on things and isn't necessary for my points above and so I leave it parenthetical.)

'Having arrived and stationed his army on a steep hill in front of Amphipolis, he himself viewed the marshy area of the Strymon and how the city was positioned adjacent to Thrace.'

Here, curiously, my query is in the opposite direction: why is ἔχοι optative rather than indicative? Is it because it is effectively an indirect question, with the indicative turning into the optative?

I wouldn't say it is because it is an indirect question. According to the sequence of tenses, both indirect statements and indirect questions can have their verbs changed to optative after verbs in secondary tenses. And that is all that seems to be happening here.

As an aside, this is an example of characteristically Thucydidean prolepsis, the subject of the verb ἔχοι, ie τὴν θέσιν, coming out of the dependent clause to become the object of the main verb ἐθεᾶτο and changing case from nom. to acc.

Please, keep "basic" questions coming. Nothing helps me more than seeing how you folks reason through sentences. Let me know what you think. If you would like Smyth numbers, I don't mind at all digging them up. Even if it takes me the better part of an afternoon!

pster - many thanks indeed for taking the trouble to answer my queries so fully.

With regard to Greek grammars, I'm afraid all I have are Smyth, Goodwin's Moods and Tenses, and Denniston's Greek Particles.

Re V.6.3, in the light of your comprehensive explanation I've revisited Smyth, who I find cites this very passage (under 'Result Clauses') in section 2277; he translates it as: '... so that Cleon could not have escaped his notice in setting out with his force'. In the light of your and his comments, I'll tweak my translation accordingly.

As to V.7.4, I think we're in broad agreement. I assumed that the change of mood to optative represented a (theoretical) question along the lines of 'what was the disposition of the city relative to Thrace?' - but perhaps I'm missing something.

You are of course correct about the characteristic Thucydidean prolepsis.

John W. wrote:As to V.7.4, I think we're in broad agreement. I assumed that the change of mood to optative represented a (theoretical) question along the lines of 'what was the disposition of the city relative to Thrace?' - but perhaps I'm missing something.

I suspect your grasp of these matters is subtler than mine. I flatfootedly reason as follows: I think it probably does qualify as an indirect question because of the conjunction and the overall sense. But you seem to think that the optative somehow makes it qualify as a question. Why is that? After all, we know that the optative can occur with mundane indirect statements governed by secondary tenses. Thucydides could have used the indicative, for what Sidgwick calls "vividness", could he not? And it would still be an indirect question, or so I claim. So what about the optative here leads you to a "theoretical" question?

John W. wrote:As to V.7.4, I think we're in broad agreement. I assumed that the change of mood to optative represented a (theoretical) question along the lines of 'what was the disposition of the city relative to Thrace?' - but perhaps I'm missing something.

I suspect your grasp of these matters is subtler than mine. I flatfootedly reason as follows: I think it probably does qualify as an indirect question because of the conjunction and the overall sense. But you seem to think that the optative somehow makes it qualify as a question. Why is that? After all, we know that the optative can occur with mundane indirect statements governed by secondary tenses. Thucydides could have used the indicative, for what Sidgwick calls "vividness", could he not? And it would still be an indirect question, or so I claim. So what about the optative here leads you to a "theoretical" question?

That's kind of you, but I fear that any subtlety on my part is probably coincidental!

The way I looked at V.7.4 was this:

(i) Something must account for the transposition from indicative to optative;

(ii) As you noted in your post of yesterday, 'According to the sequence of tenses, both indirect statements and indirect questions can have their verbs changed to optative after verbs in secondary tenses';

(iii) There seems nothing about this passage which could be construed as an indirect statement;

(iv) In view of (iii), and of the fact that the passage could be reformulated as suggested in my previous email, the likely explanation of the optative is that the passage is being treated grammatically as an indirect question.

So it's not exactly that I think the optative makes it qualify as a question, but rather that, since it seems more akin to an indirect question than to an indirect statement, that is the only way in which I can account for the optative.

John W. wrote:(i) Something must account for the transposition from indicative to optative;

I find that the older I get, the more my disagreements come down to the very first assumption.

So, I would have to say that I disagree with your (i). My understanding is that the optative is the default mood. Then, if the author wants to add "vividness", they use the indicative. Sidgwick makes this point over and over and over.

I just looked at what Sidgwick says about indirect questions and he says that they are treated "exactly" the same as indirect statments.

You know Thudydides much better than I do, so perhaps he uses the indicative more than I appreciate?

Just to step back a bit, all I was (very inexpertly) trying to say is that the reason we have ἔχοι here rather than the indicative was that the statement was being treated as an indirect question. I didn't mean to imply that the use of the optative was abnormal in an indirect question; indeed, I think that it would be fairly standard for Thucydides.

John W. wrote:As to V.7.4, I think we're in broad agreement. I assumed that the change of mood to optative represented a (theoretical) question along the lines of 'what was the disposition of the city relative to Thrace?' - but perhaps I'm missing something.

I suspect your grasp of these matters is subtler than mine. I flatfootedly reason as follows: I think it probably does qualify as an indirect question because of the conjunction and the overall sense. But you seem to think that the optative somehow makes it qualify as a question. Why is that? After all, we know that the optative can occur with mundane indirect statements governed by secondary tenses. Thucydides could have used the indicative, for what Sidgwick calls "vividness", could he not? And it would still be an indirect question, or so I claim. So what about the optative here leads you to a "theoretical" question?

That's kind of you, but I fear that any subtlety on my part is probably coincidental!

The way I looked at V.7.4 was this:

(i) Something must account for the transposition from indicative to optative;

(ii) As you noted in your post of yesterday, 'According to the sequence of tenses, both indirect statements and indirect questions can have their verbs changed to optative after verbs in secondary tenses';

(iii) There seems nothing about this passage which could be construed as an indirect statement;

(iv) In view of (iii), and of the fact that the passage could be reformulated as suggested in my previous email, the likely explanation of the optative is that the passage is being treated grammatically as an indirect question.

So it's not exactly that I think the optative makes it qualify as a question, but rather that, since it seems more akin to an indirect question than to an indirect statement, that is the only way in which I can account for the optative.

Best wishes,

John

I think this is definitely a case of ὡς as an indirect interrogative, dependent upon ἐθεᾶτο,with the sense of an inspection or survey (or the bombastic word used by LSJ, reconnoitre).His thought/direct speech would have been in the indicative. ἐθεᾶτο· πῶς ἔχει ἡ θέσις τῆς πόλεως ἐπὶ τῇ Θρᾴκῃ;As such, it follows the same common rules for indirect speech, as pster noted in his above posts.

NateD26 wrote:I think this is definitely a case of ὡς as an indirect interrogative, dependent upon ἐθεᾶτο,with the sense of an inspection or survey (or the bombastic word used by LSJ, reconnoitre).His thought/direct speech would have been in the indicative. ἐθεᾶτο· πῶς ἔχει ἡ θέσις τῆς πόλεως ἐπὶ τῇ Θρᾴκῃ;As such, it follows the same common rules for indirect speech, as pster noted in his above posts.

Nate - many thanks for this; I agree with you and pster.

With apologies for troubling you further, do you have any thoughts on the previous point I raised (in my post of 29 December above) regarding the use of ἅμα in IV.130.2?

The query really boils down to what to construe ἅμα with. Some commentators take it as merely co-ordinating the actions of Nicias and Nicostratus, in which case one could translate:

'And on the following day Nicias advanced with half of the army to the Scionians' borders and ravaged the land, while at the same time Nicostratus with the remainder laid siege to Mende at the inland gates, through which people travel towards Potidaea.'

However, I incline to take ἅμα as synchronising προϊὼν and ἐδῄου, and so I have translated:

'And on the following day Nicias advanced with half of the army as far as the Scionians’ borders, ravaging the land as he went, while Nicostratus with the remainder laid siege to Mende at the inland gates, through which people travel towards Potidaea.'

This second interpretation makes more sense to me, but other views would be very welcome.

Best wishes,

John

I think it is often difficult to decide the role of ἅμα in complex sentences where several actionson the part of several parties are coordinated. I do agree with your thought regarding the coordination of Nicias' and Nicostratus' actions already expressed by μὲν... δὲ, perhaps leaving ἅμαto coordinate Nicias' actions that day. Unless we can find similar examples from Thucydideswhere he'd used ἅμα in the same manner.

NateD26 wrote:I think it is often difficult to decide the role of ἅμα in complex sentences where several actions on the part of several parties are coordinated. I do agree with your thought regarding the coordination of Nicias' and Nicostratus' actions already expressed by μὲν... δὲ, perhaps leaving ἅμαto coordinate Nicias' actions that day. Unless we can find similar examples from Thucydideswhere he'd used ἅμα in the same manner.

Many thanks for looking at this for me, Nate, and for your helpful comments. I'll keep an eye out for any useful parallels elsewhere in Thucydides.

Cameron calls it a constructio ad sensum and says that the rules of syntax are violated in the interest of sense. Forbes discusses it. http://archive.org/stream/cu31924086055 ... 6/mode/1up But I have no idea what the heck is going on. Cameron translates it as "our own resources". He gets resources from the sense of the controlling verb ἐξαρτύω--to get ready.

1) How would it read if it didn't violate the rules of syntax?

2) How would we literally translate it? "Our resources of ourselves"?

3) And if 2) is acceptable, then I am not even sure what rule of syntax is being violated. For once, the stinking possessive genitive seems to be in the right place (because it is a pronoun)!! Isn't it more a case of loopy redundancy?

With regard to I.82, I translate the clause in question as: '... and in the meantime I recommend that we make ready our own resources, both by bringing over allies ... and at the same time by providing for ourselves'. I think τὰ ἡμέτερ᾽ αὐτῶν is simply emphatic ('our own resources'), and I too don't understand Cameron's ad sensum comment - unless perhaps it relates to the τὰ ἡμέτερ᾽ αὐτῶν construction in general (could it be said to be ad sensum for τὰ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν?), rather than to this particular instance of its use by Thucydides.

John W. wrote: and I too don't understand Cameron's ad sensum comment - unless perhaps it relates to the τὰ ἡμέτερ᾽ αὐτῶν construction in general (could it be said to be ad sensum for τὰ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν?), rather than to this particular instance of its use by Thucydides.

I think I understand Cameron now. The αὐτῶν is emphatic as you say. But there is no noun for it to emphasize. Usually, there is a noun, or a finite verb that implies a noun as subject. But here Thucydides uses αὐτῶν anyway in violation of normal syntax and in service of sense. He can do so because ἡμέτερ᾽ implies the noun "we/us" for αὐτῶν to emphasize. τὰ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν would be an example where the αὐτῶν does not violate normal syntax, but I don't know whether the phrase as a whole is acceptable Attic.

John W. wrote: and I too don't understand Cameron's ad sensum comment - unless perhaps it relates to the τὰ ἡμέτερ᾽ αὐτῶν construction in general (could it be said to be ad sensum for τὰ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν?), rather than to this particular instance of its use by Thucydides.

I think I understand Cameron now. The αὐτῶν is emphatic as you say. But there is no noun for it to emphasize. Usually, there is a noun, or a finite verb that implies a noun as subject. But here Thucydides uses αὐτῶν anyway in violation of normal syntax and in service of sense. He can do so because ἡμέτερ᾽ implies the noun "we/us" for αὐτῶν to emphasize. τὰ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν would be an example where the αὐτῶν does not violate normal syntax, but I don't know whether the phrase as a whole is acceptable Attic.

So I'm happy. Hope you are too.

I believe ἡμῶν αὐτῶν is a reflexive pronoun and would mean something awkward like "the resources of ourselves." The emphasis here has to come from ἡμέτερ᾽. τὰ αὐτῶν by itself is very commonand does not violate any syntactic rules I'm familiar with.

But yes Nate, you are correct about the reflexive bit and I was incorrect to even entertain the idea that τὰ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν could be correct Attic.

I looked at the Forbes again and he has nothing interesting to say.

I think we are all comfortable with what is going on. Do either of you think that any of us is still confused about any of this? I'm slightly worried that we could end up talking past each other. Is there any remaining controversy/loose end?

Fascinating discovery. Now it seems like Cameron was mistaken in calling this a constructio ad sensum because it seems like perfectly fine syntax. The only thing that is weird is why the 2.a. examples are called reflexive. They are no different from the 1. examples except that Smyth put in front a (subject implying) verb. As Smyth says at 1198 they are "reflexive" if and only if they refer to the same person as the subject of the sentence. That's a bit weak for my tastes. Contrast it with the difference between direct and indirect reflexives: there differerent functions lead to different forms. Here, (slightly) different function doesn't lead to different form. But no point in arguing against a definition. Anyway, good find. What puzzles you about it?

What puzzled me was the use of αὐτῶν to refer to anything other than 3rd person plural.Then I remembered that it has a reflexive force in the nominative in any person (e.g. Socrates' words at the beginning of his Apologia: ἐγὼ δ᾽ οὖν καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ὀλίγου ἐμαυτοῦ ἐπελαθόμην, οὕτω πιθανῶς ἔλεγον.) so perhaps this is what Smyth means by "the intensive αὐτῶν".

We know that ἐπελαθόμην is 1st person sg. so the use of ἐγὼ is merely for contrast with the previous clause (μέν) about his accusers.

Second, we have καὶ αὐτὸς, the use of the nominative to refer to oneself, whatever person andnumber that one may be. In this case, 1st person sg., Socrates himself.

Third, ἐμαυτοῦ is a reflexive going with ὀλίγου and the verb.

All in all, English would consider this stacking of pronouns and reflexives redundant, but in his opening statement, where he'd sought to present himself as an inept, inadequate orator, this must have caused quite an effect on the jurors.